Comments:Standoffs remain after Mumbai attacks

Latest comment: 15 years ago by

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

  • Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
  • Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
  • You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

It's so sad to see the Taj collapse like that, slow but almost sure. It's making me cry.

why is media showing love coverage of the operation, the terriost may watch it on tv and change there strategy and creat problem for cammandos —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand this attack. It was well coordinated, well funded, well planned, and well executed. Yet there appears not to have been any tactical objective, only widespread and untargeted slaughter. But if that were the case, surely a few bombs would have been easier, cheaper, and likely to result in the loss of fewer operatives? Further, how does an operation of this size with so many resources placed at its disposal go completely unnoticed beforehand? The only thing that is clear is that someone wants war... but who? And why? 01:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)Reply